Dumbledore is Gay

[williamjm]

Probably because people don't ever stop bugging her about these questions in interviews, readings, etc. I mean, it's not their fault, they just want to know. But I'm sure she hears the same questions over and over again and after a point it's just easier to explain things.

Every major writer who responds to their fans has to do this. Tolkein responded to many fan letters with information that we only now know is "canon" because he said so to some letter who wrote back to them.

It reminds me of a story Raymond Feist told once about a time when someone came up to him up at a booksigning and started berating him about the lack of gay characters in Magician. Feist was a bit irritated by this and responded by claiming that Kulgan and Meecham were gay (two men living together alone in the woods), even though he hadn't previously thought of them that way. In Feist's case he later made it properly canonical by strongly implying the relationship in Prince of the Blood

[Anthem]

I always find it highly irritating when JK Rowling says something or rather about characters in bloody interviews. I'm always of the fact it's what the reader thinks that counts, even if the author hadn't thought of it that way. If some reader thought Dumbledore was asexual, then to them he is - because to them there's very little evidence to show in the seven books Dumbledore had a sexual relationship with anyone, male or female.

I'm perfectly accepting of old Dumbledore being gay, though. It explains why he was so sympathetic to outsiders of society such as Hagrid. *shrug* But I don't really care. The HP books are (thankfully) over and they should be left to the readers' imaginations.

[Shryke]

I'm less concerned about their being no hints, as there just being no reason to make it conclusive.

That's my opinion. There's no real need to "out" him.

I can understand why it never would have come up though. I mean, the whole thing is told from Harry's perspective. And one of the big points (and one of the best points imo) was that, for all Harry thought of Dumbledore as a father figure and learned from him and everything, he really didn't know much about him. WE don't really know much about Dumbledore. His life, his habits, anything. We've got a basic story of his life, and that's about it. Harry may be his student, but I see no reason why this would eve have come up.

[Ormond]

Actually I found the following paragraph in the interview to be the most interesting:

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

It seems to me that if the above happened as she said it did, this probably was part of the "back story" for the character in her own mind for quite a while, and not an idea she just came up with recently to counter criticism that there weren't any gay characters in the story.

I thought she presented Horace Slughorn in some ways with characteristics that a lot of Americans would stereotypically think were gay -- single older man, likes to give tea parties, interested in "the best people" and a name dropper -- though it might be different in British culture. I also like to think Neville is probably gay, myself.

I can understand both the positives and negatives in giving out this information in interviews. But it does sort of seem inevitable that any author who gives so many interviews would eventually reveal "back story" facts that might irritate readers who had other conceptions of the characters than the author does.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Seems to be more of an afterthought to keep HP in the news.

Rowling wrote to the scriptwriters of the sixth HP film a while back, asking them to remove a reference to a girl whom Dumbledore had once loved (she then explained why she wanted it removed). I think she's intended Dumbledore to be homosexual for a while.

I was expecting a revelation along these lines though - Dumbledore's extreme emotional investment in the Grindelwald thing struck me as unusual. Combined with the fact that Grindelwald was the closest thing that Dumbledore seems to have had to a love interest (there's no references at all to a past wife or girlfriend), it seems that Rowling's revelation fits well enough with canon.

[TerraPrime]

Another bit of revealing information in another reporting of the event:

Upon hearing her response, a hush fell over the audience in attendence and then applause exploded. Rowling remarked that if she had known that would be the response, she would've revealed her thoughts on Dumbledore earlier.

I think that pretty much showed that Rowling had planned for Dumbledore to be gay, perhaps not from book 1 but certainly it was a part of her backstory, and held back from revealing that information in the books for fear of a negative reaction from her readers.

On the whole event, I am of two minds. On one hand, it was great to know that a key character in the book is gay (I also agree with Ormond that I secretly harbor a suspicion that Neville is gay, and I also suspect that Sirius Black is a victim of an unrequitted crush on James Potter). On the other hand, I wish that the information had been gleaned from the text. If we can learn of Snape's love for Lily through pensieve, I don't know why the same cannot have happened for Dumbledore's affair with Grindenwald.

On the point of Rowling revealing book information in interviews, I cannot agree with it at all. GRRM himself often reveals background information, anything from house sigils to family lineages, in interviews and at conventions. It is not a big deal.

[VarysTheSpider]

Not only is there no textual suggestion of Dumbledore being gay in the books, there is no textual suggestion of homosexuality at all that I can recall. It's pretty clear that to me that she intended him to be gay, but planned to release the info later for fear of a dent in sales. That's what sets her into a different, inferior category to Tolkien and GRRM, IMO.

I didn't know she continued the epilogue in an interview. I somehow doubt I'll be googling it anytime soon.

[delete this account pls]

Sirius was the one I always thought of as gay. He was a bit to in love with James Potter.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Actually I found the following paragraph in the interview to be the most interesting:

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

It seems to me that if the above happened as she said it did, this probably was part of the "back story" for the character in her own mind for quite a while, and not an idea she just came up with recently to counter criticism that there weren't any gay characters in the story.

I thought she presented Horace Slughorn in some ways with characteristics that a lot of Americans would stereotypically think were gay -- single older man, likes to give tea parties, interested in "the best people" and a name dropper -- though it might be different in British culture. I also like to think Neville is probably gay, myself.

I can understand both the positives and negatives in giving out this information in interviews. But it does sort of seem inevitable that any author who gives so many interviews would eventually reveal "back story" facts that might irritate readers who had other conceptions of the characters than the author does.

IIRC, JKR said that Neville marries Hannah Abbot. It should have been Luna imo.

[Aryeztur]

Did she even plan this out, or just arbitrarily come up with this, because that's what i think she did. Just like she seems to have not planned out the horcuxes and then arbitrarily put them in. Although I liked the way that books 4-7 had more mature themes, realistic themes, i thought books 1-4 were more well written. Often I got exicted by the media and everyone's excitment over HP, and HP is good, but when one actually sits down and thinks about it, it's pretty average writing, although the story's concept is cool.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I liked the way that books 4-7 had more mature themes, realistic themes, i thought books 1-4 were more well written. Often I got exicted by the media and everyone's excitment over HP, and HP is good, but when one actually sits down and thinks about it, it's pretty average writing, although the story's concept is cool.

Book Four was my favourite, but in hindsight she really should have left it as a trilogy. Towards the end of the series it became clear that Rowling's vision was starting to exceed her skill at writing: HP started out whimsical, and its whimsical nature was what made it so great. Her attempt to force the story to fit the demands of adult-level novels ended up being counter-productive.

Oh yes, and Books 5-7 could have done with a damn good editing.

[Zahir al Daoud]

Actually, I suspected Dumbledore might have been gay after reading Deathly Hallows. But there are lots and lots and lots of details that simply cannot be put into the story. Snape's love of Lilly was an essential plot point. Dumbledore's sexual preference was not.

[A Time for Wolves]

When I read Book 7, I thought it sounded like Dumbledore was gay, but dismissed the idea, because there was no textual evidence for it otherwise. I agree that it's annoying to have all of this come out randomly without any hint being made in the books, until Deathly Hallows.

It really should have been hinted at in the books. If we must suffer through heated, cheesy Ginny/Harry scenes, we ought to have been given tidbits on Dumbledore, who was an infinitely more interesting character.

And Neville married Hannah? Where the hell did that come from? Hannah and Neville never even interacted onscreen. It was always Hannah with Ernie, Neville with Luna. WTF. But then, I haven't thought much of JKR since I read the 7th book.

[MeanMrMustard]

I always find it highly irritating when JK Rowling says something or rather about characters in bloody interviews.

The bottom line is that Rowling is a HORRIBLE writer. Not a good writer. Not a medicore writer. She is fucking garbage. Nothing should surprise you or irritate you because you should already know how absurd the Harry Potter phenomenon is.

GRRM himself often reveals background information, anything from house sigils to family lineages, in interviews and at conventions. It is not a big deal.

This is dumb as shit. GRRM has not revealed in interviews something of this order of magnitude that wasn't in the books.

[Brude]

A few of my friends had come to the conclusion that he was probably gay after Book 7. I have no problem with later confirmations of such a thing later on by writers. I mean, if people are already making guesses about such stuff, then it must be in there to see for at least some people who 'get' the clues.

It may just be that she did it all this way intentionally, especially if she had a bit of a political agenda in that respect. Create a character that millions of children around the world look up to and then reveal that, oh, "by the way, this person that you love so much is actually gay, and see, they're still the same person you always cared about before." Yeah, I can easily see that being something she worked out well ahead of time. She made sure to put just enough clues in the text so that when revealed it would make sense to people, but not enough to hit you over the head with it.

[Red Sun]

Not only is there no textual suggestion of Dumbledore being gay in the books, there is no textual suggestion of homosexuality at all that I can recall. It's pretty clear that to me that she intended him to be gay, but planned to release the info later for fear of a dent in sales. That's what sets her into a different, inferior category to Tolkien and GRRM, IMO.

I didn't know she continued the epilogue in an interview. I somehow doubt I'll be googling it anytime soon.

Like Brudewollen, I know people who have thought of the Dumbledore/Grindelwald connection, when they read the last book. But those are also people who slash Xavier and Magneto from X-men or Londo Mollari and G'Kar from Babylon 5, so they might have a special perspective.

[Anthem]

Like a lot of people, I was left thinking What. The. Fuck. after I read Neville and Hannah shacked up. In another interview I remember Rowling said something along the lines of Luna marrying a dude not mentioned once in the fucking series. My respect for Rowling as an author plummeted afterwards.

Oh, and MeanMrMustard, I must disagree with your evaluation of Rowling's writing abilities. I'll concede the monstrosity that was the sixth book should never have left the cutting room floor. And don't even get me started on the Deathly Hallows. But I think it's unfair to call Rowling absolute garbage - I have been traumatised by far, far worse. Compared to the ghost writer who pretends to be V.C. fucking Andrews, Rowling is a Nobel-prize winning author.

Sirius was the one I always thought of as gay. He was a bit to in love with James Potter.

Whoa! Never picked up on that one!

[Kat]

Like a lot of people, I was left thinking What. The. Fuck. after I read Neville and Hannah shacked up. In another interview I remember Rowling said something along the lines of Luna marrying a dude not mentioned once in the fucking series. My respect for Rowling as an author plummeted afterwards.

I don't get it. Why should it be bothersome that a character didn't marry another named Hogwarts student? Heaven forbid anyone have a life outside their school friends... (Of course, I always thought Neville and Luna would be good together at the same time as I had my money on Neville as the most likely to be gay character, so who knows.)

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'll concede the monstrosity that was the sixth book should never have left the cutting room floor.

I'd rate number six above both number five (the weakest of the series) and number seven (the most incompetently told book of the series). Rowling's major problems are that (1) she was starting to bite off more than she could chew at that point and (2) she lacked an editor with a spine.

[Anthem]

I don't get it. Why should it be bothersome that a character didn't marry another named Hogwarts student? Heaven forbid anyone have a life outside their school friends... (Of course, I always thought Neville and Luna would be good together at the same time as I had my money on Neville as the most likely to be gay character, so who knows.)

Well, I get your point. However the books are not real life - kind of like years and years down the track, some fan asks GRRM who, lets just say Arya, marries, and he says she married a Philip McDonald. I'd go "huh?". What irritates me is that the piece of info about Luna marrying Random Dude #1 is that it sounded like Rowling just pulled that out of her arse when asked. Such details are best left to the readers' imaginations. Some readers thought Neville and Luna made a cute couple because they saw something there (I didn't). The ghastly epilogue was very unclear on who Neville and Luna and Draco eventually ended up with, and it really should have been left to fanfics and readers to decide.

I'd rate number six above both number five (the weakest of the series) and number seven (the most incompetently told book of the series). Rowling's major problems are that (1) she was starting to bite off more than she could chew at that point and (2) she lacked an editor with a spine.

I'm going to present a highly unpopular opinion. My favourite book out of the series was Order of the Phoenix. I found it the most humorous, and though there are many, many flaws (such as being over-bloated with details) I thorougly enjoyed it.

I'm looking forward to what those creepy American hard-core religious conservatives have got to say on Dumbly being OMG ho-mo-sex-ual.